A myth is born. Plyler v. Doe ruled citizenship for offspring of illegal aliens

Well, something has to be done. Here's what's happening folks, the democrats are relying on the emotions of people saying "(gasp) you can't separate families! That's terrible, and you can deport citizens either, that's equally terrible!!" So what's left is illegals running across the border, giving birth, and hence the term "anchor baby" is born. That's not a bad word, it's just what it is.

Finding a loophole in the law is no excuse for breaking the law, and the continued breaking of the law.

So, "subject to the jurisdiction of" needs to be defined once and for all, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "an exemption to our immigration laws and sovereign borders"
1733858583114.png



Let us keep in mind, existing policy, not law, recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil as a citizen of the United States.

The good news is, Trump can change that policy with a stroke of his pen.

See: Here’s how Pres. Trump can end Birthright Citizenship… scroll to “Using Administrative Authority”.
 
Well, something has to be done. Here's what's happening folks, the democrats are relying on the emotions of people saying "(gasp) you can't separate families! That's terrible, and you can deport citizens either, that's equally terrible!!" So what's left is illegals running across the border, giving birth, and hence the term "anchor baby" is born. That's not a bad word, it's just what it is.

Finding a loophole in the law is no excuse for breaking the law, and the continued breaking of the law.

So, "subject to the jurisdiction of" needs to be defined once and for all, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "an exemption to our immigration laws and sovereign borders"
80% of all illegals are single males between 18-48
10% are united man, woman and child together .
It’s another hoax
 
Let us keep in mind, existing law, not policy, recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil as a citizen of the United States.
 
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. It's aptly named because its exactly what it does. They come here, have a baby, and now they are "anchored" here because you can't split the family up and you can't deport a citizen.
 
80% of all illegals are single males between 18-48
10% are united man, woman and child together .
It’s another hoax
And you think those illegals are not having babies while they are here in the states? Aside from those who come here who are already pregnant, those that aren't, who are here for years waiting on their court cases, are probably having babies while they are here waiting.
 
How many times have we heard that Plyler v. Doe confirms, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, becomes a United States citizen upon birth? But as it turns out, that is a blatant lie, perpetuated to legitimatize "anchor babies", and the social and financial destruction they inflict upon American citizens and their children.

So, let us review the actual facts.

The first important fact to determine is, what was the court called upon to decide in Plyer v. Doe. The answer, as stated by Justice Brennan is:

"The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens."

The first thing to note is, the court was not called upon to decide if the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, becomes a United States citizen upon birth

Let us now explore how the ongoing myth came to be, that Plyler v. Doe, (1982) ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment grants United States citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national if born on American soil.

Justice Brennan writes in Plyler v. Doe:

“Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [10]

Brennan's Footnote 10 gives birth to the myth and reads as follows:


“Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words `subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words `within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons `within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" Id., at 687.”

“Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).” (my bolding of the text)

So, as we find out, Justice Brennan never actually took up the question, if the Fourteenth Amendment grants United States citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national if born on American soil. He merely references a writing of Clement Lincoln Bouvé, published in 1912 which asserted “. . . no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

And that is how the myth was born, that the court ruled in Plyler v. Doe, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, is granted United States citizenship at birth.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the problem. Brennen's comments in Plyer are nothing more than dicta.
 
Happens all the time.
It does? Where? I thought that was the big kerfuffle, the separation of kids from parents. When have we deported illegal parents and left the kids here?
 
... When have we deported illegal parents and left the kids here?

All the time. Sometimes the parents take their child with them. Sometimes they leave the US citizen child with a relative (or a "relative").
 
All the time. Sometimes the parents take their child with them. Sometimes they leave the US citizen child with a relative (or a "relative").
But that's by choice. Has the US ever forced it?
 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the problem. Brennen's comments in Plyer are nothing more than dicta.

:yes_text12:

You are absolutely correct about dicta.

Aside from that the Wong Kim Ark ruling which based birthright citizenship on the status of his parents when born, were lawfully domiciled in the United States. Our current statutory wording for lawfully domiciled is lawful permanent residence (LPR) SOURCE

And, as expressed under existing statutory law see: A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if all of the following requirements are met at the time of the person’s birth:

The person is a child[2] of a U.S. citizen parent(s);

The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States
or an outlying possession before the person’s birth in accordance with the applicable provision;[3] and

The person meets all other applicable requirements under either INA 301 or INA 309.

In the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court establised:

(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally; (2) had been settled in American for quite some time; (3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States; (4) they were carrying on a lawful business; (5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :

“For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Today we are talking about illegal entrant foreign nationals giving birth on American soil.

JWK
 
Back
Top Bottom